People v. Bajar y Laguda

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252019. February 10, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CHRISTOPHER BAJAR y LAGUDA a.k.a. "CHRISTOPHER MORALLOS" and a.k.a. "TOPHER", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 10, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252019 (People of the Philippines v. Christopher Bajar y Laguda a.k.a. "Christopher Morallos" and a.k.a. "Topher"). — Accused-appellant Christopher Bajar (Christopher) challenges in this appeal 1 the Decision 2 dated September 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12047, which affirmed with modification the judgment of conviction for murder rendered against him by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 54 in its Decision 3 dated August 9, 2018 in Criminal Case No. 14-309608.

Facts of the Case

On May 27, 2014, at around 3:00 p.m., John Paul Dionisio (John Paul) was taking care of his one-year old niece at the terrace of their house at Unit 36, Building 24, Aroma Compound, Tondo, Manila. From the terrace, John Paul saw his brother Jaypee Dionisio y Polonan (Jaypee) at the alley. Jaypee was walking towards the gate of Aroma Compound to get a jeepney ride to work. Then, John Paul noticed Christopher riding a motorcycle. Christopher passed by their building and then blew his horn right behind Jaypee. Jaypee turned around. Christopher shot Jaypee on the face. Jaypee was able to parry the shot with his left hand. Christopher shot Jaypee again, this time at his body. Jaypee was hit but still managed to run towards the guardhouse. Immediately, John Paul told his parents about the shooting. He left his niece and ran to assist his brother. While running to the guardhouse, John Paul saw Christopher drive towards Aroma compound. When John Paul reached Jaypee, Jaypee was holding his abdomen and was very weak. John Paul hailed a tricycle and brought Jaypee to Gat. Andres Bonifacio Hospital. On the way to Gat. Andres Bonifacio Hospital, Jaypee told John Paul, "Noy, binaril ako. Si Toper." 4 First aid treatment was given to Jaypee at the Gat. Andres Bonifacio Hospital. The operating room was full so John Paul decided to bring Jaypee to the Jose Reyes Hospital. Jaypee died on the way. 5

At around 3:20 p.m. of the same day, PO3 Joseph Yares Kabigting (PO3 Kabigting) received a telephone call from Joven Eduria (Eduria), the security guard of Jose Reyes Hospital. PO3 Kabigting was informed that a victim of gun shooting was brought to their hospital and declared dead on arrival. PO3 Kabigting went to Jose Reyes Hospital. Eduria accompanied him to the morgue and identified the body of Jaypee. PO3 Kabigting noted that there were three gunshot wounds located on the trunk and upper left arm. At 4:30 p.m. of the same day, PO3 Kabigting went to Aroma Compound and conducted an ocular inspection of the crime scene. He talked to Jaypee's mother, Lorlyn Dionisio (Lorlyn), and to John Paul. PO3 Kabigting assisted Lorlyn and John Paul in preparing their sworn statements dated May 29, 2014. 6

Lorlyn testified that at the time of Jaypee's death, he was 28 years old and worked as a bouncer. Jaypee was earning P650.00/day. Lorlyn incurred P39,400.40 for Jaypee's hospital and burial expenses. Lorlyn also presented the following before the court: (1) Jaypee's birth certificate; (2) Jaypee's death certificate; and (3) Jaypee's employment certificate. 7 CAIHTE

The defense presented Christopher as its lone witness. Christopher denied the charge against him. He claimed that his real name is Christopher Bajar, not Christopher Morallos as stated by John Paul. According to Christopher, he was in his house in Trece Martires, Cavite at around 3:00 p.m. of May 27, 2014. He was taking care of his three children because his common-law wife was five months pregnant at that time. Christopher stated that he goes to Tondo, Manila only on Saturdays and Sundays to attend to his PisoNet business. On November 19, 2014, Christopher was in his house at 1088 Area A, Parola, Gate 8, Tondo, Manila. He was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest against a certain Christopher Samson. Eventually, Christopher was acquitted for robbery and possession of explosives because he is not the same person who is the accused in the said cases. Lastly, Christopher alleged that John Paul only identified him after Lorlyn pointed Christopher as the accused. 8

On October 30, 2014, an Information 9 was filed against Christopher for murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:

That on or about May 27, 2014, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one JAYPEE DIONISIO y POLONAN, by then and there repeatedly shooting the latter with a gun of undetermined caliber, in the different parts of his body, while the said JAYPEE DIONISIO y POLONAN, was then walking along Road 10, Vitas, Tondo, this City, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

Contrary to Law.

Christopher pleaded not guilty.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On August 9, 2018, the RTC rendered judgment 10 convicting Christopher guilty of murder. John Paul's testimony established that Christopher killed Jaypee when he repeatedly shot Jaypee. The manner of execution of the shooting also showed treachery as it was done in a swift and unexpected manner, giving no chance for the victim to defend himself or escape. The victim was unarmed and was merely going to work when he was killed. Before dying, Jaypee told John Paul that it was 'Topher' who shot him. Christopher's alibi that he was in Cavite at the time the crime happened cannot overturn John Paul's clear, positive and categorical testimony. Jaypee's allegation that he is in Tondo only on weekends is belied by the fact that he was arrested in Tondo on November 17, 2014, which was a Monday. The prosecution, however, failed to establish evident premeditation. There is no evidence on record showing Christopher's determination to commit the crime after a sufficient time allowing him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Christopher was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Jaypee the following: (a) P75,000.00 civil indemnity; (b) P75,000 moral damages; (c) P30,000.00 exemplary damages; (d) P39,400.40 actual damages; (e) P4,112,333.20 for loss of income, all subject to 6% interest from the date of finality of decision until full payment. 11

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification as follows: (1) to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P75,000.00 (instead of P30,000.00) as exemplary damages and (2) additional P25,000.00 as temperate damages. 12

The CA gave credence to John Paul's eyewitness testimony that established the following: (1) that Jaypee was killed; (2) that Christopher killed Jaypee by shooting Jaypee on the face and on the body; (3) that the killing was attended by treachery when Christopher suddenly shot Jaypee from behind and Jaypee was completely unaware of any threat to his life; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. John Paul positively identified Christopher as the person who shot Jaypee. Also, John Paul clarified in his testimony that Christopher Morallos in his affidavit is the same Christopher Bajar who is accused in this case. The CA further found that the testimony of John Paul is not inconsistent. John Paul testified that Christopher inflicted gunshot wounds on Jaypee's left forearm, left upper chest and right side of abdomen. This statement of John Paul is consistent with the cause of Jaypee's demise as stated on his death certificate which was "gunshot wound, trunk and left upper extremity." 13 The CA also explained that the discrepancies between John Paul's statements in his affidavit and those he made on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him because ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Furthermore, the inconsistencies pointed out by the defense are insufficient to affect John Paul's credibility as an eyewitness. In addition, Jaypee's dying testimony that it was Christopher who shot him is admissible. When Jaypee told John Paul who shot him, Jaypee was already suffering from mortal wounds and he is aware of his impending death. The CA did not give credit to Christopher's defense of alibi that he was in Trece Martires, Cavite when the incident happened because it did not rule out the possibility that he committed the offense charged. It was not physically impossible for Christopher to be in Tondo at the time of the crime, especially since he admitted that he also attends to his PisoNet business in Aroma Compound. 14 DETACa

The CA increased the award of exemplary damages to P75,000.00 in accordance with People v. Jugueta. 15 The CA modified the award of actual damages. The CA did not consider the following as competent proofs to justify the award of actual damages: (a) document issued by Funenaria Cruz containing the cost of the casket and other funeral services; (b) the provisional receipts; and (c) the statement of account from Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, 16 this Court ruled that only substantiated and proven expenses or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized. Hence, in computing for the actual damages, the CA only considered the official receipt issued by Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center showing that P1,400.00 was incurred for Jaypee's laboratory examinations and hospital card. Since the actual damages proven is less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. 17 Lastly, the CA affirmed the amount granted by the RTC as damages due to loss of earning capacity. While the certificate of employment issued by Jaypee's employer was not formally offered, the same may still be admitted since Lorlyn identified the same in her testimony and has been incorporated in the records of the case. 18

In its Manifestation 19 dated October 20, 2020, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief and will be adopting their Appellee's Brief before the CA. Likewise, the defense through the Public Attorney's Office, filed its Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 20 dated October 14, 2020.

Ruling of the Court

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure of accused-appellant to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in upholding his conviction for the crime of murder.

In People v. Solar, 21 the Court explained that any Information which alleges a qualifying or aggravating circumstance must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3 (e) (i.e., that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by said Rules. Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial. 22 Furthermore, the Court instructs that "for cases in which a judgment or decision has already been rendered by the trial court and is still pending appeal, the case shall be judged by the appellate court depending on whether the accused has already waived his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, (i.e., whether he previously filed either a motion to quash under Section 3 (e), Rule 117, or a motion for a bill of particulars) pursuant to this Decision." 23 In the present case, the Information filed against Christopher merely averred that the killing was done with treachery. The particular and specific acts and circumstances constituting treachery as a qualifying circumstance in murder were not detailed in the Information. However, Christopher did not question the insufficiency of the Information filed against him through either a motion to quash or motion for bill of particulars. He voluntarily entered his plea during arraignment and proceeded with the trial. He is deemed to have waived any of the waivable defects in the Information and he is deemed to have understood the acts imputed against him by the Information. He raised this issue only in his Appeal with the CA.

Here, John Paul positively identified Christopher when he pointed to Christopher inside the court room. While pointing to Christopher, John Paul also described him as "the dark man." 24 When asked, the person pointed by John Paul said that his name is Christopher Bajar. 25 John Paul's description of Christopher as dark also matches the Personal Information Sheet for the Accused signed by Christopher. 26 According to the Personal Information Sheet, Christopher's complexion is "black." 27 John Paul further testified that Christopher resides in Aroma Compound, Tondo, Manila where John Paul had been living for three years already at the time of the incident. 28 According to John Paul, Christopher is a known as a tough person (hari-harian) in their place. 29 Meaning, John Paul knows accused-appellant even before the incident. John Paul narrated that from a distance of 15 arms-length, he saw Christopher shoot Jaypee at his head and then at his body. 30 The argument raised by the defense on the alleged inconsistency in the name of Christopher has no merit. Knowing the identity of an accused is different from knowing his name for the weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the fact that said witness saw the accused commit the crime and not because he or she knew his name. 31 Besides, John Paul explained that Christopher Bajar and Christopher Morallos are one and the same person. John Paul claimed that Christopher changes his name every time he commits a criminal act and that Christopher is known by a lot of people by the name Christopher Morallos. 32 This is the reason why John Paul stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay33 dated May 29, 2014, that the person who shot Jaypee is Christopher Morallos, who is the same person as Christopher Bajar. 34 It is also important to note that the parties stipulated on the identity of the accused as the person charged in the Information. 35

There are four requisites that must concur in order that a dying declaration may be admissible: (1) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarants' death; (2) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (4) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death. 36 The first and fourth requisites are undoubtedly present in this case where the subject of inquiry is the death of Jaypee. With regard to the third requisite, there is no evidence presented to show that Jaypee could not have been competent to be a witness had he survived. In the absence of evidence showing that the declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had he survived, the presumption must be sustained that he would have been competent. 37 For the third requisite, Jaypee made the declaration after sustaining gunshot wounds on his trunk and upper left extremity and while John Paul was helping him as he was already falling down. 38 This Court has held that the declarant's belief in the imminence of his death can be shown by the declarant's own statements or from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of the physicians. 39 In this case, Jaypee sustained gunshot wounds on his trunk and upper left extremity 40 and made the declaration when he was weak and death was already imminent. Lastly, the fact that the dying declaration was not mentioned in John Paul's Sinumpaang Salaysay41 does not negate the fact that the same was made. It is oft repeated that affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. Generally, the affiant is asked standard questions, coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers, that later turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant knows them. As between the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails because affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in court. 42 aDSIHc

In order to appreciate treachery, the following elements must be present: (1) the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. Here, John Paul, who is a credible eyewitness, testified that Christopher, riding a motorcycle and armed with a 9mm pistol on his right hand, shot Jaypee on the head and upper left chest, while the latter was merely walking towards the gate of the compound to ride a jeepney. 43 The attack was sudden and unexpected because "when [Jaypee] saw the gun it was already pointed at him, so he was able to put up his arm where he was hit and the bullet penetrated at his left forearm and penetrated his upper left chest." 44 Clearly, Jaypee had no chance to defend himself. Records further show that Christopher deliberately executed the attack along Road 10 of Aroma Compound, at around 3PM in the afternoon, when there are only a few people around. 45 In addition, the fact that Christopher was riding a motorcycle when he attacked Jaypee 46 shows that he consciously ensued the commission of the crime without danger to himself and the possibility of an immediate escape. Proceeding from the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to overturn the concurring findings of the RTC and the CA in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

The prosecution was able to adequately establish the guilt of Christopher of the crime charged. First, the testimony of John Paul, an eyewitness, suffices to establish the culpability of Christopher for Murder qualified by treachery. John Paul clearly narrated the details of the incident and positively identified Christopher as the assailant. 47Second, PO3 Kabigting corroborated John Paul's testimony that Jaypee sustained gunshot wounds on the trunk and left upper arm. 48 PO3 Kabigting also testified that on May 29, 2014, or only two days after the shooting incident, he interviewed and took the sworn statements 49 of John Paul and Lorlyn. 50 The statements therein support the testimony of John Paul and Lorlyn before the trial court. 51Third, there is no showing that the witnesses for the prosecution are motivated by ill-will which could have impelled them to falsely testify against Christopher. Fourth, PO3 Kabigting stated in his sworn affidavit 52 that Leonard Daculinao y Lindayag was hit by a stray bullet during the shooting incident on May 27, 2014. 53 This statement adds credence to John Paul's testimony that a shooting incident happened in Aroma Compound on the same day that Jaypee was gunned down. 54Fourth, Christopher's defense of denial 55 cannot prevail over John Paul's positive identification of Christopher as the assailant. 56 To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit. As found by the RTC, the fact that Christopher was arrested in Tondo on November 17, 2014, which was a Monday, belies his allegation that he goes to Tondo only on weekends. 57 The accused also admitted that he was resting in his house in Tondo when he was arrested for robbery by virtue of a warrant of arrest for Christopher Samson. 58 The CA correctly did not give credit to Christopher's defense of alibi that he was in Trece Martires, Cavite when the incident happened because it did not rule out the possibility that he committed the offense charged. It was not physically impossible for Christopher to be in Tondo at the time of the crime, especially since he admitted that he also attends to his PisoNet business in Aroma Compound. 59Fifth, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court lending credibility to the prosecution witnesses, which were affirmed by the appellate court. 60 There is no showing that the said findings are tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and influence.

The CA correctly imposed the proper penalty and the damages to be awarded, in accordance with People v. Jugueta. 61 Accordingly, Christopher is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Jaypee the following: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; (d) P25,000.00 as temperate damages; and (e) P4,112,333.20 for loss of income, all subject to 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of decision until full payment.

In sum, the Court finds no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC and the CA. Thus, Christopher's conviction for the crime of murder must stand.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12047 which found accused-appellant Christopher Bajar y Laguda GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 14-309608 for the crime of murder is AFFIRMED.

The Manila City Jail Warden is required to TRANSFER the accused-appellant to the New Bilibid Prison Muntinlupa, and to SUBMIT to this Court a report of such transfer, within ten (10) days from notice; and the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is required to CONFIRM the confinement of accused-appellant to said prison and to SUBMIT to this Court a report thereon, within ten (10) days from receipt of the accused-appellant. ETHIDa

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 20.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Louis P. Acosta; id. at 3-19.

3. Penned by Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson; CA rollo, pp. 56-61.

4. TSN dated July 1, 2015, p. 9.

5.Id. at 2-9.

6. TSN dated June 15, 2016, pp. 14-15.

7. TSN dated June 10, 2015, pp. 2-4, 6-9.

8. TSN dated September 6, 2017, pp. 3-9.

9. Records, p. 1.

10.Supra note 3.

11. CA rollo, pp. 60-61.

12.Rollo, pp. 18-19.

13.Id. at 12.

14.Id. at 11-17.

15. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

16. 486 Phil. 574 (2004).

17.Rollo, pp. 17-18.

18.Id. at 18.

19.Id. at 35-36.

20.Id. at 29.

21. G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019.

22.Id.

23.Id.

24. TSN dated July 1, 2015, p. 4.

25.Id.

26. Records, p. 30.

27.Id.

28. TSN dated July 1, 2015, p. 22.

29.Id. at 4.

30.Id. at 5-7.

31.People v. Agsunod, Jr., 366 Phil. 294, 303 (1999).

32. TSN dated July 1, 2015, p. 22.

33. Records, pp. 11-12.

34.Id.

35.Id. at 51.

36.People v. Quisayas, 731 Phil. 577, 594 (2014).

37.People v. Umapas, 807 Phil. 975, 986 (2017).

38. TSN dated July 1, 201 5, pp. 8-9.

39.People v. Salafranca, 682 Phil. 470, 482 (2012).

40. Records, pp. 19-20.

41.Id. at 11-12.

42.Kummer v. People, 717 Phil. 670, 679 (2013).

43. TSN dated July 1, 2015, pp. 5-7.

44.Id. at 7.

45.Id. at 18-19.

46.Id. at 6.

47. TSN dated July 1, 2015.

48. TSN dated June 15, 2015, p. 6.

49. Records, pp. 10-12.

50. TSN dated June 15, 2015, p. 6.

51. Records, pp. 10-12.

52.Id. at 14-15.

53.Id. at 15.

54.Id.

55. CA rollo, p. 58.

56. TSN dated July 1, 2015, pp. 3-4; records, pp. 11-12.

57. CA rollo, pp. 60-61.

58. TSN dated September 6, 2017, p. 9.

59.Rollo, p. 17.

60.Id. at 16-17.

61.Supra note 15.